What would be the most effective testimony against SB308, the magazine capacity ban bill?


Questions:
1) Has there ever been a shooting in Hawaii involving more than 10 rounds shot out of a rifle? Do we a good statistical summary of gun use anywhere?

2) Does anybody have experience using 10+ round magazines for eradication hunting in Hawaii?

3) What is the status of the US Supreme Court and magazine bans? Wasn't there a case winding its way there?

4) Is there any official guidance on how a 10+ round magazine can be legally modified into a 10 round magazine?

5) Considering this bill would "take effect upon approval", would that leave any sort of grace period for disposal of magazines before everybody became criminals?


Many arguments have been rehashed, and lost, for years regarding the pistol magazine ban. And it's perhaps not useful to point out the language problems with the law considering it's a very minor change to a current long-standing law.

I feel like the fact that this ban would extend to non-concealable guns that can only be in the own home is the best thing to point out. What sense is there in it being legal for somebody to keep 10 guns in their own home, each with 10 rounds, but not one gun with 20 rounds? It's not as if it is ever legal to have a loaded long gun anywhere other than at home, the shooting range, or while hunting.

I currently plan to talk about how:
A. It's unreasonable that somebody going through the hoops to be trusted to keep multiple unconcealable guns in their own home now can't be trusted to have more than 10 rounds in a single one of those guns;
B. There is a significant personal burden required to replace hundreds of dollars worth of magazines, and that without clarification on how existing magazines can be modified, it leaves modified magazines in a legal grey area.


Any better rhetorical tacks I'm missing?

What would be the most effective testimony against SB308, the magazine capacity ban bill?

\Questions:
1) Has there ever been a shooting in Hawaii involving more than 10 rounds shot out of a rifle? Do we a good statistical summary of gun use anywhere?
Be careful with this one.  People may counter then why do you need more than 10 rounds for self-defense?

2) Does anybody have experience using 10+ round magazines for eradication hunting in Hawaii?
Not experienced with hunting, but 10+ rounds seems excessive even for eradication.  I figure deer and sheep would run off and be long gone before shooting 10 rounds.

3) What is the status of the US Supreme Court and magazine bans? Wasn't there a case winding its way there?
Waiting to see if SCOTUS picks up the cases on January 24th, last day for them to do so.

4) Is there any official guidance on how a 10+ round magazine can be legally modified into a 10 round magazine?
There are commercial magazine blockers you can epoxy into the magazine, and other in home hacks using rivets, screws, etc..  Would cost money and possibly make the magazine unreliable.

5) Considering this bill would "take effect upon approval", would that leave any sort of grace period for disposal of magazines before everybody became criminals?
Realistically LE would give a grace period for people to be compliant


Many arguments have been rehashed, and lost, for years regarding the pistol magazine ban. And it's perhaps not useful to point out the language problems with the law considering it's a very minor change to a current long-standing law.

I feel like the fact that this ban would extend to non-concealable guns that can only be in the own home is the best thing to point out. What sense is there in it being legal for somebody to keep 10 guns in their own home, each with 10 rounds, but not one gun with 20 rounds? It's not as if it is ever legal to have a loaded long gun anywhere other than at home, the shooting range, or while hunting.

I currently plan to talk about how:
A. It's unreasonable that somebody going through the hoops to be trusted to keep multiple unconcealable guns in their own home now can't be trusted to have more than 10 rounds in a single one of those guns;
This is a good point.  We've gone through background checks and training, and we are the good guys.  Bad guys aren't going to turn in or modify their magazines.

B. There is a significant personal burden required to replace hundreds of dollars worth of magazines, and that without clarification on how existing magazines can be modified, it leaves modified magazines in a legal grey area.
Another good point on the costs.  Bringing up the modifications won't do anything, they'll just amend the bill to better define it.

Any better rhetorical tacks I'm missing?
10 rounds isn't much for self-defense, especially against multiple attackers.  Toloke Kingsley was shot while defending himself against  3 attackers with his AR15.  I forgot how many rounds he fired, might have been 10 or less, but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes with a 10 round magazine.  Like if they put limits on fire extinguisher capacity so you can only get the small ones.  Just buy more of them incase there's a big fire?  Yea right.  https://www.kitv.com/news/crime/waianae-father-survives-shootout-with-strangers-arriving-in-driveway/article_773e51aa-a501-11ec-9afb-2f93254872e4.html

There are commercial magazine blockers you can epoxy into the magazine, and other in home hacks using rivets, screws, etc..  Would cost money and possibly make the magazine unreliable.

As it pertains to blocking off pistol magazines, which has been the law for quite some time, has there ever been official statement regarding whether commercial blockers or DIY hacks are sufficient to be legal?

As it pertains to blocking off pistol magazines, which has been the law for quite some time, has there ever been official statement regarding whether commercial blockers or DIY hacks are sufficient to be legal?

I called the AG for a definition on "readily restorable" and was told "you need to consult an attorney".

Just as the GCA does not define “readily converted,” the NFA does not define “readily restored.”  However, the term “readily,” with respect to the NFA, has been read by courts to “encompass several elements of restoration:

(1) time, i.e., how long it takes to restore the weapon;
(2) ease, i.e., how difficult it is to restore the weapon;
(3) expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required to restore the weapon;
(4) necessary equipment, i.e., what tools are required to restore the weapon;
(5) availability, i.e., where additional parts are required, how easily they can be obtained;
(6) expense, i.e., how much it costs to restore the weapon;
(7) scope, i.e., the extent to which the weapon has been changed . . . ;
(8.) feasibility, i.e., whether the restoration would damage or destroy the weapon or cause it to malfunction.” 

United States v. one TRW Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle from William K. Alverson, 441 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2006).

Despite determining elements of “readily” for consideration, no clear standard exists.  Individual courts choose which elements to consider as well as how to weight each element’s importance.  With varying interpretations from court to court and the absence of a clear standard defining “readily,” compliance with the law is difficult at best.  For example, with respect to the element of time only, one court has determined “readily” to mean that the modification can be completed within two minutes. United States v. Woodlan, 527 F.2d 608 (6th Cir. 1976).  This could lead someone to believe that modification which requires an hour to complete is not done so “readily.” However, another court focused on both time and equipment and said that a firearm was deemed “readily restored” even when it required an eight-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop in order to be converted.  United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399 (8th Cir. 1973).  Depending on which standard is used, a seven hour and fifty-eight minute window of time and a complete disparity of the level of equipment needed exists between what is and is not a firearm.

Other courts have displayed similar discrepancy when determining “readiness.”  Focusing on both time and equipment, the Alverson court defined “readily” as the ability to manufacture the required parts in four to six hours with particular machinery or in two to three hours by hand.  Alverson at 423.  Another court determined that a two-hour process that required only simple tools and a stick weld was enough to “readily” convert.  United States v. TRW Rifle 7.62x51mm Caliber, One Model 14, 447 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 2006).

One court ignored the elements of time, expertise and equipment and instead focused only on the availability of parts.  The court declared that a disassembled weapon, which was missing a necessary part, was considered “readily restored” simply because the necessary part was available on the open market.  United States v. Cook, No. 92-1467, 1993 WL 243823 (6th Cir. 1993).  Another court set an extreme upper limit on what is not considered “readily” without helping to define what is.  It can be assumed that anything less than what the court declared is not “readily” could be considered “readily.”  In an extreme example, the court said that a firearm is not considered “readily” restorable when conversion would require an expert gunsmith with tools costing up to $65,000, working between “four and perhaps in excess of thirty hours,” using essential parts that can not be found in this country and doing modifications that could damage or destroy the firearm and cause injury to the shooter upon firing.  United States v. Seven Misc. Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565 (D.D.C. 1980).

A few courts have referred to the Smith “eight hours in a machine shop” standard when determining readiness.  The Alverson court upheld a conviction of the defendant where six hours in a machine shop would have been required to modify the firearm.  The court reasoned that since six hours was less than the eight hours standard from Smith, six hours of machine shop time was within the definition of “readily.”  Another court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment by relying on the Smith eight hour standard.  The court said that the one hour of time that would have been required by the defendant was less than eight hours and therefore should have been considered “readily.” United States v. Catanzaro, 368 F.Supp 450 (D.Conn 1973).   Even if the Smith determination was a standard which could be relied upon, a large problem would still exist.  In today’s manufacturing world, machine shops can produce hundreds of firearms in an eight hour work day.  Using the Smith standard, raw materials should be considered firearms a hundred times over.

What Does “Readily Converted” Mean for Firearms?

Short answer: it depends on who you ask and what context it's in.https://gununiversity.com/readily-converted/

One example is the CA ban against removable magazines on ARs.  The law was written to say a magazine is not ejectable if a tool is needed to remove it.  Enter the invention of the Bullet Button mag release.  With the press of the button using a tool, the mag was easily ejected.  The courts ruled that a bullet being used to press the button constituted a "tool" and therefore satisfied the law.

Then CA tried to correct their poorly thought out law by requiring the receiver be disassembled instead of just needing a tool to eject the mag.  Several inventions quickly entered the market including SafeMag, which immediately ejects a magazine when the rear takedown pin is removed and the upper & lower receivers are separated at the rear while hinged on the front takedown pin.

No matter how well the laws include descriptions of how one must have a firearm or magazine configured, there are always going to be clever people finding ways to comply with the law as written while circumventing the intent.  That's why mag blocking is so vague.  It basically leaves enforcement up to the discretion of the cops and the courts.

I find it comical that the same state which treats a fully loaded magazine stored next to an unloaded gun as compliant for transporting, yet we are told by cops blocked mags have to be permanently fixed and sealed with epoxy.   

If you want a question answered by the AG, have one of the legislators ask the question to them in testimony.  Your legislator will have no idea on the subject which is why you have to teach it to them beforehand.  That way they'll feel confident in asking the question, and be able to follow it up with more questions if AG just gives a generic answer.

I tried this years ago with Saiki and Moriwaki, but they don't answer my calls.  Lets home with Kim he does.  I already emailed him to LMK if he has any questions.

Doesn't have to be your district legislator.  Could be another strong 2a legislator or someone you're friends with.